Ethics Question: When Is It Enough?

Quite a bit of discussion this morning in the newsroom on the graphic testimony from Dr. Lisa Kohler, the Summit County Medical Examiner, on the condition of Jessie Marie Davis' body when it was discovered after nine days of exposure. This is coverage you will not hear on our radio stations, and that's our choice.

The audio from today's testimony in Stark County Common Pleas Court in The State v Bobby Cutts, Jr. is very specific and not at all atypical of what any Medical Examiner or Coroner would testify to on the condition of a body and resulting autopsy procedure; anyone who's watching any of the CSI programs can figure that out. The difference is real versus Hollywood, and whether it really matters that those of following the Cutts case through broadcast reports (radio and television) should hear this testimony.

We will not use the graphic, disturbing autopsy audio on our broadcast reports. This material (condition of organs, viewing of Jessie's unborn child, etc.) doesn't leave much to the imagination and for the purposes of the official court record that's a good thing. For the purposes of reporting the case to the general public outside the courtroom, however, I'm not sure it is appropriate.

The testimony, while necessary for the jury, can be paraphrased for the sake of an audience that doesn't have the ability to control whether or not they hear or see it. If you are monitoring the case through online reports, you are in control of listening; when you are in the car a "...this graphic audio may be disturbing..." with a two-second warning to hit the switch offers little if in fact no choice at all for the listener.

The key issue in Kohler's testimony is not the condition of the body; we get that. If you don't, wait until summer and perform your own experiment by leaving dinner outside for nine days. The key issue is just why it has been so difficult for the experts to pinpoint the exact cause of death, and those questions can be answered in a fashion that doesn't require us to have advanced medical degrees or a lust for the excessively disturbing. It's a criminal trial, not another episode of the SAW movies.

Bottom line: if you want to hear it, you choose to click on the link; if you are in the car, washing the dishes, or listening at work we don't need to invade your space with the nitty-gritty. The content depends on the context it is presented in this case, and our judgment is to err on the side of the listener.

That difference of control is paramount.